505872

research-article2013
PSPXXX10.1177/0146167213505872Personality and Social Psychology BulletinGreitemeyer

Article

Personality and Social

Playing Violent Video Games Increases

Psychology Bulletin
2014, Vol 40(1) 70­–78
© 2013 by the Society for Personality
Intergroup Bias and Social Psychology, Inc
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0146167213505872
pspb.sagepub.com

Tobias Greitemeyer1

Abstract
Previous research has shown how, why, and for whom violent video game play is related to aggression and aggression-related
variables. In contrast, less is known about whether some individuals are more likely than others to be the target of increased
aggression after violent video game play. The present research examined the idea that the effects of violent video game play
are stronger when the target is a member of an outgroup rather than an ingroup. In fact, a correlational study revealed that
violent video game exposure was positively related to ethnocentrism. This relation remained significant when controlling
for trait aggression. Providing causal evidence, an experimental study showed that playing a violent video game increased
aggressive behavior, and that this effect was more pronounced when the target was an outgroup rather than an ingroup
member. Possible mediating mechanisms are discussed.

Keywords
video games, intergroup bias, aggressive behavior, media effects

Received May 24, 2013; revision accepted August 28, 2013

Playing Violent Video Games Increases video game play is assumed to be associated with intergroup
Intergroup Bias bias. Intergroup bias refers to the tendency to evaluate one’s
ingroup and its members more favorably (ingroup favorit-
Playing violent video games appears to be associated with ism) and/or to derogate the outgroup and its members (out-
aggression and aggression-related variables. Cross-sectional group negativity). It may be expressed in prejudiced attitudes,
studies typically reveal positive correlations between violent stereotyped cognitions, and discriminatory behavior
video game play and aggression in real world contexts (e.g., (Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis, 2002). In the present research,
Krahé & Möller, 2004). Experimental work suggests that measures of ethnocentrism and discrimination (i.e., increased
playing violent video games causally increases aggression aggression toward an outgroup member) were used as prox-
(e.g., Fischer, Kastenmüller, & Greitemeyer, 2010). Finally, ies for intergroup bias. In the following, these terms will be
longitudinal investigations show that habitual violent video used interchangeably.
game play predicts later aggression even after controlling for
initial aggressiveness (e.g., Anderson et al., 2008). It should
be noted that some studies failed to find that violent video Theoretical Perspectives
games cause aggression (e.g., Adachi & Willoughby, 2011). When explaining the effects of violent video games on
However, the most comprehensive meta-analysis so far aggression and aggression-related variables, many research-
(Anderson et al., 2010) found clear evidence that playing ers refer to the General Aggression Model (GAM) proposed
violent video games significantly increases aggressive by Anderson and colleagues (e.g., Anderson & Bushman,
thoughts, hostile affect, and aggressive behavior. Effect sizes 2002a). This model integrates assumptions from various the-
were small to medium, but they were consistently found in ories, such as social learning theory and related social-cogni-
experimental, cross-sectional, and longitudinal studies. Thus, tive research (Bandura, 1986), social information-processing
the question is no longer whether violent video game expo-
sure increases aggression. It is more interesting to ask, for
instance, whether some individuals are more likely than oth- 1
University of Innsbruck, Austria
ers to be the target of increased aggression after violent video
Corresponding Author:
game play. The present research examines the idea that out- Tobias Greitemeyer, University of Innsbruck, Innrain 52, Innsbruck, 6020,
group members more than ingroup members will suffer from Austria.
another person’s violent video game play, in that violent Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on May 4, 2015

Greitemeyer 71

model (Dodge & Crick, 1990), script theory (Huesmann, participants’ attitudes supporting aggression against women
1986), and excitation transfer model (Zillmann, 1983). (Dill, Brown, & Collins, 2008). Likewise, Saleem and
According to the GAM, violent video games may affect a Anderson (2013) demonstrated that playing an antiterrorist
person’s internal state in that they evoke associations to video game increases anti-Arab attitudes relative to partici-
aggressive cognitions, arousal, and affect related to aggres- pants who played a nonviolent game. It thus appears that
sion. This internal state in turn influences how social events video game depictions of social groups can influence atti-
are perceived and interpreted. Finally, on the basis of this tudes, feelings, and behavior toward members from those
decision process, the person behaves more or less aggres- groups.
sively in a social encounter. Moreover, the model does not But violent video game play may affect attitudes and
only account for short-term effects of playing violent video behavior toward members of an outgroup even when the
game but also for long-term changes as a result of repeated video game does not contain any reference to this particular
encounters with violent video games. outgroup. According to frustration-aggression and scape-
There has been good evidence for the predictive validity goating models of prejudice (Allport, 1954; Berkowitz,
of the GAM for the effects of playing violent video games on 1989; Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939; for a
aggression and aggression-related variables. As noted above, modern approach, see Rothschild, Landau, Sullivan, &
numerous studies have shown that playing violent video Keefer, 2012), individuals who are frustrated or unhappy dis-
games is associated with increased aggressive behavior. place aggression onto stigmatized outgroups. In fact, experi-
Violent video game play has been also shown to increase encing negative affective experiences, such as anger or
aggressive thoughts (Anderson & Dill, 2000) and affect anxiety, increases intergroup bias (e.g., Baron, Inman, Kao,
(Anderson & Ford, 1986). Moreover, internal states, consist- & Logan, 1992; DeSteno, Dasgupta, Bartlett, & Cajdric,
ing of cognition, affect, and arousal, appear to underlie the 2004; Kuppens et al., 2012). On the other hand, violent
effects of playing violent video games on aggressive behav- video game exposure has been shown to be associated with
ior (e.g., Anderson et al., 2004). Research has also addressed a wide range of negative affective states. Playing violent
whether individuals with some personality characteristics are video games stimulates anxiety and feelings of depression
more vulnerable to these effects than others (e.g., Markey & (Anderson & Ford, 1986), evokes hostile feelings (Ballard &
Markey, 2010). In sum, it appears that the aim of the GAM to Wiest, 1996), and increases not only angry feelings in the
integrate the effects of violent video games on aggression short term (e.g., Carnagey & Anderson, 2005) but also trait
and aggression-related variables into a common theoretical anger in the long term (Bartholow, Sestir, & Davis, 2005).
framework is supported by empirical evidence and that this Taken together, because playing violent video games tend to
model can be successfully employed to predict how, why, elicit negative affective experiences, which have been shown
and for whom violent video game play is related to aggres- to evoke intergroup bias, it was expected that the effects of
sive behavior. violent video game play would be more pronounced when
In contrast, less is known in terms of whether some indi- the target is an outgroup rather than an ingroup member.
viduals are more likely than others to be the target of Note that the present research did not address why violent
increased aggression after violent video game play. video game play increases intergroup bias. Measurement of
According to the GAM, video games can be seen as sources possible mediators, such as negative affective experiences,
of social learning that may convey ideas about social groups. may influence subsequent measures of intergroup bias (cf.
These ideas in turn may affect the player’s attitudes and Lindsay & Anderson, 2000; Spencer, Zanna, & Fong, 2005).
behavior toward members of this social group. Likewise, the The present research aimed to provide first evidence that vio-
theory of media imagery and social learning (Dill & Burgess, lent video game play is associated with intergroup bias and
2012) proposes that portrayals of social groups influence thus abstained from measuring possible mediators, which
judgments about members of these groups as well as corre- may have produced differences in intergroup bias. Clarifying
sponding behavior. For instance, after being exposed to the exact causal mechanisms awaits future research. This
admirable portrayals of a social group, individuals should issue will be more thoroughly addressed in the General
make positive judgments about its group members and Discussion.
should engage in more helpful behavior and less aggressive
behavior toward members of this group. In contrast, con-
The Present Research
temptible portrayals of a social group should yield negative
judgments about its members and should increase aggressive The present research addressed the hypothesis that playing
behavior and decrease helping behavior toward members of violent video games increases intergroup bias. This hypoth-
this group. esis was examined in two studies, employing two different
Several studies have provided supportive evidence for the dependent measures (prejudice and discrimination) and two
predictions of the GAM and the theory of media imagery and different study designs (correlational and experimental).
social learning. For instance, exposure to images of sex- Each study design has distinct strength and weaknesses. The
typed video game characters has been found to increase male major strength of experimental studies is that causality can

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on May 4, 2015

72 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 40(1)

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Study 1.

M SD α 1 2 3 4
1. Video game violence exposure 347 594 .67 — .17 .10 .27
2. Ethnocentrism 2.19 0.80 .87 — .25 .16
3. Trait aggression 2.48 0.84 .76 — −.05
4. Sex — — — —

Note. Sex was coded 1 = female, 2 = male.

be determined. Experimental studies are usually used to an overall index of violent video game exposure. This
measure short-term effects. Correlational studies allow over- approach has been successfully employed in previous video
coming the primary weakness of experimental studies, game research (e.g., Anderson & Dill, 2000; Gentile et al.,
because they can examine the effects of a wide range of 2009).
video games on “real world” measures. Moreover, correla- To measure trait aggression, participants responded to the
tional studies can be used to measure long-term effects. The short version of the Buss and Perry aggression questionnaire
major weakness of correlational studies is that causality can- (Bryant & Smith, 2001), which comprises 12 items. The
not be determined. Hence, converging findings from studies Buss and Perry scale is one of the most popular measures of
using multiple methodologies enhance confidence in the dispositional aggression. Sample items are “Given enough
validity of the conclusions drawn (Prot & Anderson, 2013). provocation, I may hit another person” and “I have trouble
Because gender has been shown to be associated with expres- controlling my temper.” To measure ethnocentrism, the
sions of intergroup bias, aggressive behavior, and liking of Generalized Ethnocentrism scale (Neuliep & McCroskey,
violent video games, participant sex was controlled in both 1997) was employed. This scale includes 15 items (among 7
studies. filler items). Sample items are “Most other cultures are back-
ward compared to my culture” and “Life in my country is
much better than in most other places.” This scale has been
Study 1 successfully employed in past research (e.g., Greitemeyer,
Study 1 provides a first test of the notion that violent video 2012; Navarrete & Fessler, 2006). For both scales, items
game exposure is related to intergroup bias. In a cross-sec- were pooled, using the average.
tional correlational study, participants were asked to indicate
their amount of playing violent video games as well as to
Results
respond to a standardized scale measuring ethnocentrism
(i.e., the preference for the ingroup over outgroups). Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of all measures
Participants also responded to a trait measure of aggression. are shown in Table 1. As predicted, violent video game expo-
It was predicted that violent video game exposure would be sure was positively related to ethnocentrism, r(231) = .17, p
positively associated with ethnocentrism. Moreover, playing = 008. Violent video game exposure was related to trait
violent video games was assumed to affect ethnocentrism aggression, r(231) = .10, p = .122, but not significantly.
even when controlling for trait aggression. Ethnocentrism and trait aggression were also positively
related, r(231) = .25, p < 001. To examine whether violent
video game exposure affects ethnocentrism even when con-
Method trolling for trait aggression, a multiple regression was per-
Participants, procedure, and materials. The sample included formed. Violent video game exposure and trait aggression
244 respondents from an Austrian university. Only individu- were used as predictors for ethnocentrism. The overall
als who indicated to play video games were allowed to par- regression was significant, F(2, 228) = 10.28, p < .001. Most
ticipate. Thirteen participants failed to respond to at least importantly, violent video game exposure was still signifi-
one of the main variables. These participants were excluded cantly related to ethnocentrism, β = .15, p = .019. Trait
from all analyses, leaving a sample of 231 participants (126 aggression also significantly predicted ethnocentrism, β =
women, 105 men, M age = 23 years, SD = 4). .23, p < .001.1
To measure violent video game exposure, participants Sex of participants was significantly associated with vio-
were asked to name their three favorite video games, to lent video game exposure, r(231) = .27, p < .001, in that
estimate the number of hours per week spent playing each males played more violent video games than females.
video game, and to rate how violent the content of each Expressions of ethnocentrism were also associated with sex
video game was. For each video game, the amount of time of participants, with males having higher scores than females,
playing was multiplied by violent content. These three vio- r(231) = .16, p = .018. In contrast, trait aggression was not
lent video game exposure scores were averaged to provide associated with sex of participants, r(231) = −.05, p = .491.

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on May 4, 2015

Greitemeyer 73

The correlation between violent video game exposure and responses on the behavioral aggression task (i.e., more than
ethnocentrism was stronger for men (r = .19) than for women 3 standard deviations above the mean), leaving a final sam-
(r = .07), but this difference was not statistically significant, ple of 99 participants (53 women, 46 men, M age = 22 years,
Z = 0.91, p = .366.2 Finally, the link between violent video SD = 6). At the onset, participants learned that they would
game exposure and ethnocentrism remained significant when take part in two unrelated studies, the first study about the
the influence of sex of participants was partialled out, r(228) enjoyment factor of video games, the second study about
= .14, p = .036. reaction times.
Participants in the violent video game condition played
“Call of Duty 2,” which is a shooter game. We employed a
Discussion
third-person version. The player takes on the role of an Allied
Study 1 provided initial support for the hypothesis that vio- protagonist during World War II. It is important to note that
lent video game exposure affects intergroup bias. It is impor- no game character was depicted as being a member of the
tant to note that the relation between violent video game outgroup against which aggression was later assessed.
exposure and ethnocentrism remained significant when con- Participants in the neutral video game condition played
trolling for trait aggression. As in previous research (e.g., “Flipper,” which is a pinball game. Greitemeyer (2013)
Hoeft, Watson, Kesler, Bettinger, & Reiss, 2008; Lucas & employed these video games and found that the content of
Sherry, 2004), males were more likely than females to play Call of Duty 2 was perceived as being more violent than the
violent video games. There was a nonsignificant tendency content of Flipper. All participants played the video game for
that males’ more than females’ expressions of ethnocentrism 15 min. Participants were then asked to indicate their liking,
were affected by violent video game exposure. This issue perceived difficulty, frustration, excitement, and pace of the
will be addressed in more detail in the General Discussion. video game. To assess mood, they indicated how they felt at
Importantly, when controlling for the influence of sex of par- the moment. Such a one-item measure has been successfully
ticipants, the relation between violent video game exposure employed in previous studies on affective forecasting (e.g.,
and ethnocentrism remained significant. Overall, it appears Greitemeyer, 2009). Liking was assessed by two items
that violent video game exposure is associated with inter- (Cronbach’s α = .93), the remaining constructs were assessed
group bias. However, due to the correlational nature of these by one item each. All items were assessed on Likert-type
findings, no causal interpretations are appropriate. It may be scales from 1 to 7. Afterwards, participants were thanked and
that violent video game exposure increases intergroup bias, told that the first study was over.
but it is also conceivable that intergroup bias precedes vio- Then, participants learned that they would complete a
lent video game exposure and/or that some third variable competitive reaction time task. On each of 25 trials, they
leads to both. To address this issue, Study 2 employed an would compete with an opponent to see who can press a
experimental design. mouse button faster after hearing an auditory cue. Participants
further learned some information about the ostensible oppo-
nent. It was varied whether the opponent was allegedly an
Study 2
ingroup or an outgroup member. Some participants were led
Participants either played a violent or a neutral video game. to believe that the opponent was born in Austria (ingroup
Afterwards, aggressive behavior was assessed. About half condition). Others were led to believe that the opponent was
of the participants were led to believe that the target was an born in Serbia (outgroup condition). A Serbian was chosen as
ingroup member, whereas the remaining participants were the outgroup target group member because in Austria
led to believe that the target was an outgroup member. It Serbians represent one of the largest numbers of immigrants.
was predicted that participants who had played a violent Participants were told that they could punish the opponent
video game would show the highest levels of aggression with bursts of white noise. At the beginning of each trial,
when the target was an outgroup member (relative to the they could set both the duration (ranging from 1 to 10) and
remaining three experimental conditions). Note that no level of punishment for their opponent. The noise levels
mediating variables (such as ethnocentrism) were assessed. ranged in intensity from 60 decibels (Level 1) to 105 deci-
Measuring possible mediating variables may affect the sub- bels (Level 10). A nonaggressive no-noise option (Level 0)
sequent measure of aggressive behavior (Lindsay & was also offered. After each trial, participants learned about
Anderson, 2000). I will return to this issue in the “General the punishment levels set by the opponent. If they lost the
Discussion” section. trial, they received a blast of noise. In actuality, there was no
opponent—a computer controlled wins and losses, as well as
the noise intensities and durations a participant received. The
Method
task was preprogrammed so that the participant won 12 trials
Participants, procedure, and materials. Participants were 100 and lost 13 trials, with the first trial always being a loss (with
students at an Austrian university. One participant was intensity 10 and duration 10). In the following trials, a ran-
excluded from the following analyses, due to extreme dom pattern of noise blasts from the opponent was given.

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on May 4, 2015

74 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 40(1)

Table 2. Means (and Standard Deviations) of Aggressive .08. Male participants (M = 0.34, SD = 2.30) were more
Behavior as a Function of Type of Video Game and Type of aggressive than female participants (M = −0.30, SD = 1.38).
Target (Study 2). Finally, the interaction was also significant, F(1, 95) = 7.05,
Video game p = .009, η2 = .07. Male participants who played the violent
video game and their partner was an outgroup member (M =
Target member Violent n Neutral n 2.22, SD = 3.36) were significantly more aggressive than
Ingroup −0.28 (1.31) 23 −0.47 (1.30) 26 male participants in the remaining three experimental condi-
Outgroup 1.08 (2.81) 25 −0.34 (1.28) 25 tions (M = −0.32, SD = 1.31), t(44) = 3.73, p = .001, d =
1.00. In contrast, for female participants, the a priori con-
trast was not significant, t(51) = 0.98, p = .331, d = 0.29.
Previous research has shown that the first trial provides the Aggression by female participants who played the violent
best measure of unprovoked aggression because participants video game and their partner was an outgroup member (M =
have not yet received noise from their opponents (e.g., 0.03, SD = 1.70) was relatively similar to aggression by
Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, & female participants in the remaining three experimental con-
Stucke, 2001). After the first trial, aggression converges on ditions (M = −0.41, SD = 1.27).
reciprocation of what levels of aggression the opponent had The violent and the neutral video game did not signifi-
ostensibly chosen. Thus, noise intensity and duration levels cantly differ in terms of liking, perceived difficulty, frustra-
from the first trial were used as the measure of aggressive tion, pace, and mood, all ts < 1.74, all ps > .08. In contrast,
behavior. To form a more reliable measure, noise intensity the violent video game was perceived as being more exciting
and duration levels were standardized and summed. Previous (M = 3.90, SD = 1.79) than the neutral video game (M = 2.84,
research has shown that this task is a valid measure of aggres- SD = 1.45), t(97) = 3.23, p = .002, d = 0.65. However, when
sive behavior (Anderson & Bushman, 1997; Giancola & controlling for liking, perceived difficulty, frustration, excite-
Chermack, 1998). Finally, participants were thanked and ment, pace, and mood in a multiple regression, the effect of
fully debriefed. the contrast (violent video game/outgroup member com-
pared to the other three experimental conditions) on aggres-
sive behavior remained significant, β = .31, t(91) = 3.32, p =
Results .001. The remaining predictors did not receive a significant
Means and standard deviations of aggressive behavior as a regression weight, all βs < .21, all ts < 1.62, all ps > .10.
function of the experimental conditions are reported in
Table 2. To examine whether aggressive behavior was par-
ticularly pronounced after violent video game play and when
Discussion
it was targeted against an outgroup member, a planned con- As in previous research (Anderson et al., 2010), playing vio-
trast was performed on the data (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1985; lent video games was associated with increased aggressive
Steiger, 2004). As predicted, participants who had played the behavior (see Footnote 3). Extending previous research, Study
violent video game were more aggressive against the out- 2 showed for the first time that this effect was more pro-
group member (contrast weight: 3) compared with partici- nounced when the target was an outgroup rather than an
pants who had played the violent video game and the partner ingroup member. Thus, it appears that violent video game
was an ingroup member (contrast weight: −1), participants exposure indeed has a causal effect on intergroup bias. Results
who had played the neutral video game and the partner was an also revealed that this effect was stronger for male than for
outgroup member (contrast weight: −1), and participants who female participants. I will return to this issue in the “General
had played the neutral video game and the partner was an Discussion” section. It is noteworthy that only one violent and
ingroup member (contrast weight: −1), t(95) = 3.46, p = .001. one neutral video game were employed. Although the effect of
As suggested by Abelson and Prentice (1997), an analysis of violent video game play on intergroup bias remained reliable
residuals testing the significance of between-condition effects when controlling for a host of video game properties, it is still
not captured by the a priori contrast was performed next (i.e., possible that this effect might be due to specific features of the
whether there was significant variance left to explain after the particular games used other than the extent to which the con-
variance explained by the a priori contrast has been removed). tent is violent. For instance, it is noteworthy that the violent
Results revealed that the remaining systematic between video game that was employed includes an intergroup context
groups variance was not larger than would be expected by (i.e., World War 2), whereas the neutral video game does not.
chance, F(2, 95) = 1.73, p = .183. It thus appears that the a Thus, it may be that playing violent video games that do not
priori contrast captures most of the relevant variance.3 contain an intergroup context does not affect intergroup bias.
When sex of participants was also included in the experi- Importantly, no character in the video game was a member of
mental design, the a priori contrast remained significant, the same social group as the opponent in the competitive reac-
F(1, 95) = 14.05, p < .001, η2 = .13. There was a significant tion time task (i.e., Serbians). Thus, it is unlikely that playing
effect of sex of participants, F(1, 95) = 8.25, p = .005, η2 = the violent video game led to negative associations toward

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on May 4, 2015

Greitemeyer 75

Serbians in particular. Nevertheless, future research that exam- to aggressive behavior. In contrast, less theoretical and
ines to what extent the finding of increased intergroup bias empirical work has been done on whether some individuals
after violent video game play is generalizable to other video are more likely than others to be the target of increased
games is definitely welcome. aggressive behavior after violent video game play. In line
with the GAM, Study 2 revealed that playing violent video
games increases the likelihood of aggressive behavior. This
General Discussion
study also revealed that the violent video game effect was
So far, numerous studies have examined the relation between more pronounced when the target was an outgroup rather
violent video game play and aggression and aggression- than an ingroup member. Past discussions of the GAM have
related variables. These studies appear to suggest that play- not explicitly made this prediction, so the present work is
ing violent video games causes an increase in the likelihood among the first to integrate the GAM with research on inter-
of aggressive thinking, aggressive affect, and aggressive group aggression, including the frustration and scapegoating
behavior (for a recent meta-analysis, see Anderson et al., models of prejudice.
2010). Research has also addressed why and for whom vio- Future empirical work is needed to examine how violent
lent video game play is related to aggressive behavior. In video game exposure increases intergroup bias. Perhaps the
contrast, less has been known whether some social groups most likely candidate for such a mechanism would be nega-
will be more likely to be the target of increased aggression tive affective states. As noted in the Introduction, negative
after violent video game play than others (see Saleem & affective states have been linked to both violent video game
Anderson, 2013). The present research addressed the hypoth- exposure and intergroup bias. Note, however, that general
esis that violent video game play is positively associated mood did not account for the effect of violent video game
with intergroup bias, implying that outgroup members more play on intergroup bias. Thus, rather than emotional valence,
than ingroup members suffer from another person’s violent specific emotions, such as anger, that are applicable to inter-
video game play. Indeed, findings of two studies suggest that group relations (Dasgupta, DeSteno, Williams, & Hunsinger,
violent video game exposure increases intergroup bias. Study 2009) are better candidates to account for increased inter-
1 showed a positive association between the amount of vio- group bias after violent video game play. Importantly, even
lent video game play and prejudiced attitudes. Study 2 angry feelings that are not elicited by the outgroup may spill
showed that playing a violent video game causally increases over and lead to intergroup hostility (e.g., Bodenhausen,
discriminatory behavior. It is noteworthy that converging Sheppard, & Kramer, 1994; Dasgupta et al., 2009). That is,
findings have been obtained from different study designs violent video game play may elicit anger (Ballard & Wiest,
(correlational and experimental), which increases the confi- 1996; Bartholow et al., 2005; Carnagey & Anderson, 2005),
dence that violent video game play is indeed positively asso- which in turn leads to increased outgroup hostility—even
ciated with intergroup bias. though the outgroup target had nothing to do with evoking
Previous research has found that men show more group- the angry feelings.4
based responses to intergroup conflict than women do. For Of course, it may well be that variables other than angry
instance, the experience of anger increases intergroup bias only feelings underlie the finding that violent video game play
for men (Kuppens et al., 2012). Likewise, priming intergroup increases intergroup bias. For instance, the denial of human
threat enhances discrimination in men, but not in women (Yuki qualities of outgroup members has been shown to be associ-
& Yokota, 2009). In Study 1 of the present research, the corre- ated with prejudice and discrimination (Costello & Hodson,
lation between violent video game exposure and ethnocentrism 2010; Vaes, Paladino, Castelli, Leyens, & Giovanazzi, 2003)
was stronger for men than for women, but this difference was and partly account for intergroup aggression (Struch &
not significant. In Study 2, the effects of violent video game Schwartz, 1989). Moreover, playing violent video games
play on intergroup bias were significantly larger for male par- appears to be associated with intergroup dehumanization
ticipants than for female participants. Overall, there was a clear (Greitemeyer & McLatchie, 2011), in that an outgroup, but
trend that intergroup bias displayed by males (relative to by not an ingroup, member was perceived as possessing fewer
females) was more strongly affected by violent video game human qualities after violent video game play. Hence, play-
exposure. Inasmuch as males are more attracted to playing vio- ing violent video games may increase intergroup aggression
lent video games than females (e.g., Hoeft et al., 2008; Lucas & through the denial of humanness to outgroup members.
Sherry, 2004), this tendency is of special concern. The present research aimed to provide initial evidence for
the notion that violent video game play increases intergroup
bias. The measurement of underlying variables primes the
Theoretical Implications and Future Directions concept for all participants and thus may affect subsequent
As noted in the introduction, violent video game effects can measures of intergroup bias (Lindsay & Anderson, 2000;
be explained by referring to the GAM. As also noted, the Spencer et al., 2005). Thus, intergroup bias was measured,
model can be successfully employed to predict how, why, but no variables that may account for the relation between
and for whom violent video game play is related violent video game play and intergroup bias. Future research

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on May 4, 2015

76 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 40(1)

may assess possible mediators (such as angry feelings and video game: violent vs. neutral) × 2 (target member: ingroup
dehumanization) as well as intergroup bias in one study. vs. outgroup) analysis of variance was also performed on the
Violent video game play appears to increase intergroup data. Results revealed significant main effects of type of video
bias. But video games may also be employed to decrease game, F(1, 95) = 4.97, p = .028, η2 = .05 (participants who had
played the aggressive video game were more aggressive than
intergroup bias. One way might be to employ cooperative
participants who had played the neutral video game), and target
video games. Cooperative video game play is characterized
member, F(1, 95) = 4.21, p = .043, η2 = .04 (participants were
by goals that are positively linked, in that players only attain more aggressive against the outgroup member than against the
their goals when their teammates also attain their goals. ingroup member). The interaction was marginally significant,
Recent research has shown that playing video games coop- F(1, 95) = 2.86, p = .094, η2 = .03. Aggressive behavior against
eratively in a team increases subsequent cooperative behav- the outgroup member was more pronounced than against the
ior (Ewoldsen et al., 2012; Greitemeyer & Cox, 2013; ingroup member after violent video game play, t(46) = 2.12, p =
Greitemeyer, Traut-Mattausch, & Osswald, 2012). Abundant .040, d = 0.62. In contrast, after neutral video game play, aggres-
research has also found that cooperative interdependence sive behavior against the outgroup member and against the
reduces intergroup conflict (Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & ingroup member was relatively similar, t(49) = 0.36, p = .729,
Sherif, 1961; for a review, Dovidio & Gaertner, 2010). Taken d = 0.10. When using the average across the 25 trials as a mea-
sure of aggressive behavior, the pattern of findings was similar
together, it is well conceivable that playing video games
(i.e., aggression was most pronounced after violent video game
cooperatively with members of an outgroup is an effective
play and when it was targeted against an outgroup member).
approach to reduce intergroup bias. However, the main a priori contrast was not significant.
4. Note, however, that ratings of frustration did not significantly
Concluding Remarks differ as a function of video game conditions. Perhaps this was
due to the fact that frustration was measured with only one item,
Playing video games has become an important part of the which may have compromised measurement reliability.
lives of many people. A recent national survey revealed that
88% of American youth between ages 8 and 18 play video References
games (Gentile, 2009). Content analyses show that most Abelson, R. P., & Prentice, D. A. (1997). Contrast tests of interac-
video games contain violence (Smith, Lachlan, & Tamborini, tion hypotheses. Psychological Methods, 2, 315-328.
2003). Thus, violent video game play may not only increase Adachi, P. J. C., & Willoughby, T. (2011). The effect of video game
aggression on a societal level (Anderson & Bushman, competition and violence on aggressive behavior: Which char-
2002b), but, as the present research suggests, it may also acteristic has the greatest influence? Psychology of Violence,
contribute to intergroup hostility. 1, 259-274.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Oxford, UK:
Declaration of Conflicting Interests Addison-Wesley.
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (1997). External validity of
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect “trivial” experiments: The case of laboratory aggression.
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Review of General Psychology, 1, 19-41.
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002a). Human aggression.
Funding Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27-51.
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author- Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002b). The effects of media
ship, and/or publication of this article. violence on society. Science, 295, 2377-2378.
Anderson, C. A., Carnagey, N. L., Flanagan, M., Benjamin, A.
J., Eubanks, J., & Valentine, J. (2004). Violent video games:
Notes Specific effects of violent content on aggressive thoughts and
1. The short version of the Buss and Perry aggression question- behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36,
naire can be used to obtain an overall dispositional aggression 199-249.
score. It can also be used to obtain measures of four subtraits Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and aggressive
of aggression, namely, physical aggression, verbal aggression, thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life.
anger, and hostility. It was thus further tested whether the effect Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 772-790.
of violent video game exposure on ethnocentrism remained sig- Anderson, C. A., & Ford, C. M. (1986). Affect of the game player:
nificant when controlling for each of the subscales separately. In Short term effects of highly and mildly aggressive video games.
all analyses, violent video game exposure was still significantly Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 390-402.
related to ethnocentrism. Anderson, C. A., Sakamoto, A., Gentile, D. A., Ihori, N., Shibuya,
2. In a multiple regression predicting ethnocentrism, the interac- A., Yukawa, S., . . .Kobayashi, K. (2008). Longitudinal effects
tion between sex of participants and violent video game expo- of violent video games on aggression in Japan and the United
sure was also not significant, β = .12, p = .681. States. Pediatrics, 122, e1067-e1072.
3. As noted in the main text, planned comparisons are more ade- Anderson, C. A., Shibuya, A., Ihori, N., Swing, E. L., Bushman,
quate than an overall analysis of variance to test a priori predic- B. J., Sakamoto, A., . . .Saleem, M. (2010). Violent video
tions. Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness, a 2 (type of game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on May 4, 2015

Greitemeyer 77

in Eastern and Western countries. Psychological Bulletin, 136, Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2010). Intergroup bias. In S. T.
151-173. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social
Ballard, M. E., & Wiest, J. R. (1996). Mortal Kombat™: The psychology (Vol. 2, 5th ed., pp. 1084-1121). New York, NY:
effects of violent videogame play on males’ hostility and car- John Wiley.
diovascular responding. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Ewoldsen, D. R., Eno, C. A., Okdie, B. M., Velez, J. A., Guadagno,
26, 717-730. R. E., & DeCoster, J. (2012). Effect of playing violent video
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A games cooperatively or competitively on subsequent coop-
social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. erative behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social
Baron, R. S., Inman, M. L., Kao, C. F., & Logan, H. (1992). Networking, 15, 277-280.
Negative emotion and superficial social processing. Motivation Fischer, P., Kastenmüller, A., & Greitemeyer, T. (2010). Media
and Emotion, 16, 323-346. violence and the self: The impact of personalized gaming
Bartholow, B. D., Sestir, M. A., & Davis, E. (2005). Correlates and characters in aggressive video games on aggressive behavior.
consequences of exposure to video game violence: Hostile per- Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 192-195.
sonality, empathy, and aggressive behavior. Personality and Gentile, D. A. (2009). Pathological video-game use among youth
Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1573-1586. ages 8 to 18: A national study. Psychological Science, 20,
Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-Aggression hypothesis: 594-602.
Examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106, Gentile, D. A., Anderson, C. A., Yukawa, S., Ihori, N., Saleem, M.,
59-73. Ming, L. K., . . .Sakamoto, A. (2009). The effects of prosocial
Bodenhausen, G. V., Sheppard, L. A., & Kramer, G. P. (1994). video games on prosocial behaviors: International evidence
Negative affect and social judgment: The differential impact from correlational, longitudinal, and experimental studies.
of anger and sadness. European Journal of Social Psychology, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 752-763.
24, 45-62. Giancola, P., & Chermack, S. (1998). Construct validity of
Bryant, F. B., & Smith, B. D. (2001). Refining the architecture of laboratory aggression paradigms: A response to Tedeschi
aggression: A measurement model for the Buss-Perry aggres- and Quigley (1996). Aggression and Violent Behavior, 3,
sion questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 237-253.
138-167. Greitemeyer, T. (2009). The effect of anticipated affect on persis-
Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, tence and performance. Personality and Social Psychology
narcissism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggres- Bulletin, 35, 172-186.
sion: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence? Journal of Greitemeyer, T. (2012). Boosting one’s social identity: Effects of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 219-229. social exclusion on ethnocentrism. Basic and Applied Social
Carnagey, N. L., & Anderson, C. A. (2005). The effects of reward Psychology, 34, 410-416.
and punishment in violent video games on aggressive affect, Greitemeyer, T. (2013). Effects of playing video games on percep-
cognition, and behavior. Psychological Science, 16, 882- tions of one’s humanity. Journal of Social Psychology, 153,
889. 499-514.
Costello, K., & Hodson, G. (2010). Exploring the roots of dehu- Greitemeyer, T., & Cox, C. (2013). There’s no “I” in team: Effects
manization: The role of animal-human similarity in promot- of cooperative video games on cooperative behavior. European
ing immigrant humanization. Group Processes & Intergroup Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 224-228.
Relations, 13, 3-22. Greitemeyer, T., & McLatchie, N. (2011). Denying humanness to
Dasgupta, N., DeSteno, D., Williams, L. A., & Hunsinger, M. others: A newly discovered mechanism by which violent video
(2009). Fanning the flames of prejudice: The influence of spe- games increase aggressive behavior. Psychological Science,
cific incidental emotions on implicit prejudice. Emotion, 9, 22, 659-665.
585-591. Greitemeyer, T., Traut-Mattausch, E., & Osswald, S. (2012). How
DeSteno, D., Dasgupta, N., Bartlett, M. Y., & Cajdric, A. (2004). to ameliorate negative effects of violent video games on coop-
Prejudice from thin air: The effect of emotion on automatic eration: Play it cooperatively in a team. Computers in Human
intergroup attitudes. Psychological Science, 15, 319-324. Behavior, 28, 1465-1470.
Dill, K. E., Brown, B. P., & Collins, M. A. (2008). Effects of media ste- Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias.
reotypes on sexual harassment judgments and rape supportive atti- Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 575-604.
tudes: Popular video game characters, gender, violence and power. Hoeft, F., Watson, C. L., Kesler, S. R., Bettinger, K. E., & Reiss, A.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1402-1408. L. (2008). Journal of Psychiatric Research, 42, 253-258.
Dill, K. E., & Burgess, M. C. R. (2012). Seeing is believing: Toward Huesmann, L. R. (1986). Psychological processes promoting the
a theory of media imagery and social learning. In K. E. Dill relation between exposure to media violence and aggres-
& M. C. R. Burgess (Eds.), The psychology of entertainment sive behavior by the viewer. Journal of Social Issues, 42,
media: Blurring the lines between entertainment and persua- 125-139.
sion (pp. 195-225). New York, NY: Routledge. Krahé, B., & Möller, I. (2004). Playing violent electronic games,
Dodge, K. A., & Crick, N. R. (1990). Social information-process- hostile attribution style, and aggression related norms in
ing bases of aggressive behavior in children. Personality and German adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 53-69.
Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 8-22. Kuppens, T., Pollet, T. V., Teixeira, C. P., Demoulin, S., Craig
Dollard, J., Doob, L. W., Miller, N., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. Roberts, S., & Little, A. C. (2012). Emotions in context: Anger
R. (1939). Frustration and aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale causes ethnic bias but not gender bias in men but not women.
University Press. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 432-441.

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on May 4, 2015

78 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 40(1)

Lindsay, J. L., & Anderson, C. A. (2000). From antecedent condi- Cave experiment. Norman: University of Oklahoma Book
tions to violent actions: A general affective aggression model. Exchange.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 533-547. Smith, S. L., Lachlan, K., & Tamborini, R. (2003). Popular
Lucas, K., & Sherry, J. L. (2004). Sex differences in video game video games: Quantifying the presentation of violence and
play: A communication-based explanation. Communication its context. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,
Research, 31, 499-523. 47, 58-76.
Markey, P. M., & Markey, C. N. (2010). Vulnerability to violent Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (2005). Establishing a
video games: A review and integration of personality research. causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than
Review of General Psychology, 14, 82-91. meditational analyses in examining psychological processes.
Navarrete, C. D., & Fessler, D. M. T. (2006). Disease avoidance Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 845-851.
and ethnocentrism: The effects of disease vulnerability and Steiger, J. H. (2004). Beyond the F test: Effect size confidence
disgust sensitivity on intergroup attitudes. Evolution & Human intervals and tests of close fit in the analysis of variance and
Behavior, 27, 270-282. contrast analysis. Psychological Methods, 9, 164-182.
Neuliep, J. W., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997).The development of Struch, N., & Schwartz, S. H. (1989). Intergroup aggression: Its
a U.S. and generalized ethnocentrism scale. Communication predictors and distinctness from in-group bias. Journal of
Research Reports, 14, 385-398. Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 364-373.
Prot, S., & Anderson, C. A. (2013). Research methods, design, and Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S.
statistics in media psychology. In K. Dill (Ed.), The Oxford (2001). If you can’t join them, beat them: Effects of social
handbook of media psychology (pp. 109-136). New York, NY: exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and
Oxford University Press. Social Psychology, 81, 1058-1069.
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1985). Contrast analysis: Focused Vaes, J., Paladino, M. P., Castelli, L., Leyens, J.-P., & Giovanazzi,
comparisons in the analysis of variance. Cambridge, UK: A. (2003). On the behavioral consequences of infrahumaniza-
Cambridge University Press. tion: The implicit role of uniquely human emotions in inter-
Rothschild, Z. K., Landau, M. J., Sullivan, D., & Keefer, L. A. group relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
(2012). A dual-motive model of scapegoating: Displacing 85, 1016-1034.
blame to reduce guilt or increase control. Journal of Personality Yuki, M., & Yokota, K. (2009). The primal warrior: Outgroup
and Social Psychology, 102, 1148-1163. threat priming enhances intergroup discrimination in men but
Saleem, M., & Anderson, C. A. (2013). Arabs as terrorists: Effects not women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45,
of stereotypes within violent contexts on attitudes, perceptions 271-274.
and affect. Psychology of Violence, 3, 84-99. Zillmann, D. (1983). Transfer of excitation in emotional behavior.
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. In J. T. Cacioppo & R. E. Petty (Eds.), Social psychophysiol-
W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers ogy: A sourcebook (pp. 215-240). New York, NY: Guilford.

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on May 4, 2015